...and one from Column B.
For those who'd like to review the actual court filings:
Balcones:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/239316390/Bal ... urt-Filing
or -
http://whisky-file.com/2014/09/10/heres ... documents/
Tate:
http://freepdfhosting.com/e0b90918ef.pdf
Tate's response is revealing and actually rather amateurish. Is this attorney is pro bono or was this written at the bar (pun intended)? You decide, but when an attorney seems to reflect Tate's grandiosity by arguing for the "Soul of Texas", I'd say they had one too many drams of Brimstone. The filing appears to be poorly written, argued and presented. While it may please the client, the Court is another matter entirely. In comparison the company's filing is professional, unemotional and succinct.
To me Tate's tone does not bode well. Apparently he's decided to carry out his threats of destroying his former company, but now in legal fashion. Mind you, these are just first impressions, but I'd guess that if the Judge rules in Balcone's favor, that may provide one last opportunity for a positive mutual resolution. But for now...
It's balls to the wall - neither party is backing down, and the hearing will no doubt be fodder for a Reality Show "The Craft Distillers of Texas". Time to watch "Thelma and Louise" again...
*******
http://whiskyadvocate.com/whisky/2014/0 ... ent-169493
Takeout Dept: Balcones Court Filings, one from Column A...
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Takeout Dept: Balcones Court Filings, one from Column A...
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
bearmark
- Beermeister
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:35 pm
- Location: Near Dallas Texas
- Contact:
I read the entire submission on Tuesday and I found no need to judge Chip so harshly. It's hardly surprising that it counters everything that was claimed by PE, but it's interesting that Chip is required per the by-laws to form a quorum. I'm going to take a more objective wait-and-see approach, but I doubt we'll learn anything today as Chip's new lawyer suggested that the hearing would be continued to a later date.
Mark Hébert
Rum References: Flor de Caña 18 (Demeraran), The Scarlet Ibis (Trinidadian), R.L. Seale 10 (Barbadian), Appleton Extra (Jamaican), Ron Abuelo 12 (Cuban), Barbancourt 5-Star (Agricole)
Rum References: Flor de Caña 18 (Demeraran), The Scarlet Ibis (Trinidadian), R.L. Seale 10 (Barbadian), Appleton Extra (Jamaican), Ron Abuelo 12 (Cuban), Barbancourt 5-Star (Agricole)
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
There's no intent to be harsh...
...but there is every intent to be coolly truthful and observant. In a former life I was a legal researcher, and even wrote a few motions for my attorneys. This filing was not particularly well done insofar as for the Court, but seemed more designed to appease an emotional client, and also to influence Tate's public following. In the practice of law, that happens.
Want more proof? Chip has already dumped that attorney (or possibly the reverse) - whose advice may have been more negative than he wanted to hear - and hired yet another attorney which also happened to serve to buy more time. Another questionable decision that smacks of confusion and emotional desperation.
Believe me, this does not bode well for the young man, who shows no better judgement in selecting counsel than he did in giving away his controlling interest. His grandiosity will not translate well to the court room, and I suspect he's beginning to realize that.
You may also rely on the fact that the company, knowing that Tate is of the Russian roulette brand of litigant, is fully prepared to defend and prove every comma in their impressive filing. According to Tate he went through weeks and weeks of failed negotiations but is not now prepared to go to hearing?
Poppycock.
Oh, and just a bit on his claim that his vote was required - even if proven true - that would only be possibly meaningful if his absence was not by his own choice. The company alleges quite the opposite and you can be sure they are fully prepared to prove that. A good corporate document usually anticipates such issues (like sickness, incapacitation, absence, damaging performance, refusal to participate, etc.) and provides for proceeding in the face of same.
Tate's filing and attorney changing tactic to avoid the hearing does not bode well. He will soon run out of delays and have to face the music. Bear, I get that you know and like Tate but that's not the issue at hand. I too feel sorry for him.
I am not the least bit pleased to see what this talented young man has brought upon himself, which does no favors for anyone. No one can doubt for a microsecond that all here support craft distilling. It's sad, but it's happened, and it has to be reported.
It's just my educated guess - but Tate is running out of rope and his 90 days. His 15 minutes was up some time ago...
...but there is every intent to be coolly truthful and observant. In a former life I was a legal researcher, and even wrote a few motions for my attorneys. This filing was not particularly well done insofar as for the Court, but seemed more designed to appease an emotional client, and also to influence Tate's public following. In the practice of law, that happens.
Want more proof? Chip has already dumped that attorney (or possibly the reverse) - whose advice may have been more negative than he wanted to hear - and hired yet another attorney which also happened to serve to buy more time. Another questionable decision that smacks of confusion and emotional desperation.
Believe me, this does not bode well for the young man, who shows no better judgement in selecting counsel than he did in giving away his controlling interest. His grandiosity will not translate well to the court room, and I suspect he's beginning to realize that.
You may also rely on the fact that the company, knowing that Tate is of the Russian roulette brand of litigant, is fully prepared to defend and prove every comma in their impressive filing. According to Tate he went through weeks and weeks of failed negotiations but is not now prepared to go to hearing?
Poppycock.
Oh, and just a bit on his claim that his vote was required - even if proven true - that would only be possibly meaningful if his absence was not by his own choice. The company alleges quite the opposite and you can be sure they are fully prepared to prove that. A good corporate document usually anticipates such issues (like sickness, incapacitation, absence, damaging performance, refusal to participate, etc.) and provides for proceeding in the face of same.
Tate's filing and attorney changing tactic to avoid the hearing does not bode well. He will soon run out of delays and have to face the music. Bear, I get that you know and like Tate but that's not the issue at hand. I too feel sorry for him.
I am not the least bit pleased to see what this talented young man has brought upon himself, which does no favors for anyone. No one can doubt for a microsecond that all here support craft distilling. It's sad, but it's happened, and it has to be reported.
It's just my educated guess - but Tate is running out of rope and his 90 days. His 15 minutes was up some time ago...